On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Joshua Gay wrote: > >>> Perhaps we should consider a distro inactive if it takes more than a month > >>> to contact its developers, shouldn't we? > > I don't think we should have a single rule. These are all good and > useful projects run by people in our community. The FSF licensing team > can take over doing this leg work for now, although if anybody on here > has useful info you can feel free to share that with us at > [email protected].
Personally, I'd share Ali's doubts about this project being really useful, these days. > Basically I think the gameplan is that we should find out what is > happening and why and if it makes sense we should find out if there is > something we can do to help (e.g., publish a post saying that the > project is looking for a new maintainer). This sort of thing happens > very rarely so it isn't like we need to worry about spending a few extra > minutes here and there trying to connect with people. I see. what have we done in this particular case of Ututo? what are we going to do? > Depending on what happens, in some cases it might make sense to simply > note something on the free distros page and in other cases it might make > sense to remove it. If we remove it, it might also make sense to publish > a blog post. But, before we publish a blog post we should **make sure** > we know what we are writing about. So we are to find out whether Ututo is inactive, and then to figure out what we prefer: removing Ututo from the list, or dropping the requirement of being maintained from the FSDG. I don't believe keeping both is a reasonable option.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
